Interesting tidbit about 9/11...

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

thats weird that fires have never taken down buildings like that ever before.

Please provide examples of similarly constructed buildings that have been on fire and have suffered significant structural damage in addition to the dire.

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Also weird that no other buildings collapsed though there were others just as close. weird.

Building three also immediately collapsed. The other three buildings suffered such severe structural damage that they had to be demolished...meaning that they were close to collapse.

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Also weird that the man leasing the towers had huge terrorist insurance policies taken out on them just months beforehand.

Um, yes...that might, just maybe, could possibly have something to do with a history of terrorist attacks on the buildings and oh yeah, he had JUST LEASED THEM JUST MONTHS BEFOREHAND.

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Also weird is that the towers will be rebuilt with tax payer money and he will profit billions from leasing the millions and millions of sq ft of office space....weird.

Hey genius, who owned the buildings? Let me give you a hint....it was the NY Port Authority. Silverstein actually lost a lot of money as the insurance payout did not cover anything close to losses.



I have to wonder why you are actually this stupid. All you have done is ramble off a handfull of random, unrelated tidbits that any third grader could reason through. Propose a theory and give evidence supporting that theory and maybe we won't think you are a total moron.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The thing about 9/11 is that everyone seems to have taken a position of either the whole thing is exactly as it seems, or the whole thing was a giant government conspiracy. If you watch the footage of the towers collapsing, something seems off. They seem to fall too quickly and perfectly. Yet if you start to think that maybe things aren't exactly as has been presented, the hardcore tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists try to suck you in and make you believe a million other improbable things. This, of course, leads to the characterization of anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the official story as a nut-job.

I, for one, do not think everything happened exactly as it appeared. I'm not speculating as to what did happen, but I do think the official story is wrong. But there's almost no way of further investigating it, and no way of convincing anyone with access to the right information to do a serious inquiry.

I think it goes beyond that. It is either that the towers were brought down by planes, and so the conspiracy involved only a couple dozen people, or it was brought down by explosives and hundreds are involved. There really are no other options.

What brought down the 3rd tower? magic?

Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the fucking fire burning in the building and two 110 story buildings collapsing nearby with enough of an impact to be noticeable on a seismograph? Why don't you propose a theory or stfu.

thats weird that fires have never taken down buildings like that ever before. Also weird that no other buildings collapsed though there were others just as close. weird. Also weird that the man leasing the towers had huge terrorist insurance policies taken out on them just months beforehand. Also weird is that the towers will be rebuilt with tax payer money and he will profit billions from leasing the millions and millions of sq ft of office space....weird.

nothing to worry about just that guys lucky day I guess.....

:roll:It's weird that large jetliners the size of a Boeing 767 don't normally hit buildings all the time while loaded with enough fuel to fly coast to coast to cause a fire of sufficient size and scope to bring down buildings the size of the twin towers. The world is just full of weirdness. :roll:

Wierd that nothing happened to the 3rd building and still nobody wants to give a straight answer on why that fell. in the exact same fashion as the other 2 buildings.

 

[OCGuy]

The tin-hatters over this whole thing are amazing....I guess the JFK assasination is SOOOO last century.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Haven't gotten a good explanation why the 3rd building apparently collapsed for no reason. All videos show relatively little damage.

Ok, explain this very clearly to us. Which sides of the building were almost all of the photographs taken of? Was it the sides facing AWAY from towers one and two (which had people running away from them and the area was largely cordoned off)? Or did every photographer out there get the brilliant idea to stand with a burning 110 story building behind them and a burning 20? story building in front of them?

For gods sake read even Wikipedia. There is plenty of info out there but all you want to do is pick and choose what suits your delusions.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Every one of his ideas has been completely debunked by academics(and real engineers).

Not all engineers and professors though.

There are "professors" who think that the world is only 5,000 years old and flat too.

ZV

 

[clamum]

9/11 TRUTH!

lulz

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Jessie Ventura of wrestling fame also was a UDT vet. (UDT is underwater demolitions...and what became the current Navy SEAL program).

That given, shows the dude knows a bit about explosives and bring down structures.

He is also of the mindset that the WTC was not brought down by the two planes, but rather other methods in addition to them. He also questions the third building that fell in the exact same manner yet had no impact (yet may have had one scheduled).

I definitely question it, people insist that it's impossible for a conspiracy to happen...yet every day thousands of companies are keeping secrets from the common man, their competitors, and the government. It can happen. All it takes is gathering the right group of people.

It's messed up and not much any one person can change. It definitely spun off to an extremely profitable situation for many and a fuxored situation for our soldiers who are being recycled now too much.

And you know what....I knew a guy back in '93 who was also in demolitions and guess what....that guy told me the same thing about the first WTC bombing.

His theory was that it was designed to spook the American public. The force of the bomb went down....he said if the goal was to cause damage then the terrorist would have had the sense to design it to direct most of the force upwards.

Since the direction of the blast was down he felt it was a ploy by the government to get the American people behind going after the middle east for oil.

I will tell you the same thing I told him......your conspiracy theory is a total crock of shit...go do something more useful.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Wierd that nothing happened to the 3rd building and still nobody wants to give a straight answer on why that fell. in the exact same fashion as the other 2 buildings.

no nothing hit it at all

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Really? Do you honestly think this stuff through?

First it would require high up people in the government to decide to do 9/11. Second it would then take people to execute the plan. At MINIMUM you need 5-10 people to be able to wire each building in a timely fasion. Then you have to wire it the day of, because if you wire it a day or two in advance it has a higher % chance at being noticed by an employee. Then you need however many total hijackers they had (who are willing to kill themself). Not to mention the logistics of it are just way too complex and make no sense. Why would we go blow our buildings up? To go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why? For oil? Yeah that's obviously not it. Okay so how about WMD's? Yeah that was a bs reason, but we could have gone in saying WMD's without 9/11. So can you give me one reason to kill our own people, and bring down 3 buildings?

First we weren't really buying the WMD theory especially when at the time they weren't finding them. Second, it would need no one to know anything near the top. I am not sure your work experience or level, but most CEO's are looking for results from their teams. Many have no idea how these results really came to be. They just know they expect them and if they do not happen that infrastructure gets revamped.

Look at all the crime families in the US...the other relatives are not coming forward at all except in EXTREME rare circumstances and usually only after a huge carrot is held out.

In a building like the WTC, there are so many different people coming and going, building and taking things down...do you think anyone would question a few guys?

The explosives would not need to be visible at all and if they needed to have some in plain view a simple box with a set of emergency lights at the very most would be enough to hide it.

Money is the main reason....though.

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Next for the "I could give one building falling like that, but two and then the third one is just crazy from a physics standpoint as well as construction." you aren't in the engineering field are you? Towers 1 and 2 were built the same way, why do you think they WOULDN'T fall the same way? If you really want to see how you're wrong, look at the structures and how they were built. The way they fell is completely possible. The area they were hit was weakend by the impact and further weakend by the fire. Both towers collapsed from those points. Take the amount of weight from the tower and drop it close enough to vertical 30-40 ft+ (each had 3-4 stories minimum hit by each plane) and see what happens. It will collapse it vertically, not falling sideways. If you want it to fall sideways (or any other way then how it did) you would have to hit it in the middle/bottom of the tower.

Before pharmacy and biology (and later computer science) became my career, I was involved in Mechanical Engineering. I designed a few HVAC and fire suppression systems in a college and geriatric center here. The head engineer signed off on my designs as I was just an intern, but there were no changes. I know enough to be able to follow other's research into this.

You are assuming that a controlled demolition is common...also that both planes happened to impact the buildings the same way....it's highly unlikely that these events occured. Hence why one I could say was a lucky shot. Now the third building has yet to have anything scientifically explained...you have had a few 'experts' just say they can agree why it fell...but nothing substantial.

You are thinking in layman's terms and what one would think 'logically' would happen. In reality the building would have still fallen more than likely, however it would have been at some angle and into other surrounding buildings. Also it would be doubtful the buildings would be totally nuked like they were. You would expect some at the bottom few stories to remain at least in one of the cases.

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Controlled demolition is just that controlled. I would argue that Towers 1 and 2 were not very controlled, just well engineered.

i don't get this line at all.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

thats weird that fires have never taken down buildings like that ever before.

Please provide examples of similarly constructed buildings that have been on fire and have suffered significant structural damage in addition to the dire.

examples of any towers ever that have ever collapsed. You can't find it because its never happened

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Also weird that no other buildings collapsed though there were others just as close. weird.

Building three also immediately collapsed. The other three buildings suffered such severe structural damage that they had to be demolished...meaning that they were close to collapse. building 3 didn't immediately collapse. The other buildings were demolished not because they were going to collapse but because there was no feasible way of restoring them

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Also weird that the man leasing the towers had huge terrorist insurance policies taken out on them just months beforehand.

Um, yes...that might, just maybe, could possibly have something to do with a history of terrorist attacks on the buildings and oh yeah, he had JUST LEASED THEM JUST MONTHS BEFOREHAND.

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Also weird is that the towers will be rebuilt with tax payer money and he will profit billions from leasing the millions and millions of sq ft of office space....weird.

Hey genius, who owned the buildings? Let me give you a hint....it was the NY Port Authority. Silverstein actually lost a lot of money as the insurance payout did not cover anything close to losses.

your not making any sense here. Very obviously NY port authority owned the structure.....the guy had 99 year lease on it though. His losses are nothing as he has to put up zero dollars to rebuild the towers because as you stated he didn't own the buildings. The state did. He will still have the lease on the new towers which will be larger and more profitable than the old towers. He will profit unimaginable billions after they are rebuilt. This is just a big con job conducted by a few maniacal billionaires.

I have to wonder why you are actually this stupid. All you have done is ramble off a handfull of random, unrelated tidbits that any third grader could reason through. Propose a theory and give evidence supporting that theory and maybe we won't think you are a total moron.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Jessie Ventura of wrestling fame also was a UDT vet. (UDT is underwater demolitions...and what became the current Navy SEAL program).

That given, shows the dude knows a bit about explosives and bring down structures.

He is also of the mindset that the WTC was not brought down by the two planes, but rather other methods in addition to them. He also questions the third building that fell in the exact same manner yet had no impact (yet may have had one scheduled).

I definitely question it, people insist that it's impossible for a conspiracy to happen...yet every day thousands of companies are keeping secrets from the common man, their competitors, and the government. It can happen. All it takes is gathering the right group of people.

It's messed up and not much any one person can change. It definitely spun off to an extremely profitable situation for many and a fuxored situation for our soldiers who are being recycled now too much.

And you know what....I knew a guy back in '93 who was also in demolitions and guess what....that guy told me the same thing about the first WTC bombing.

His theory was that it was designed to spook the American public. The force of the bomb went down....he said if the goal was to cause damage then the terrorist would have had the sense to design it to direct most of the force upwards.

Since the direction of the blast was down he felt it was a ploy by the government to get the American people behind going after the middle east for oil.

I will tell you the same thing I told him......your conspiracy theory is a total crock of shit...go do something more useful.

Thing is...it didn't have to be the government that was involved. This is like the whole creation vs evolution thing. The creationists argue that evolutionist do not believe in any form of God. For the most part this is untrue...however this is what perpetuates the mudslinging.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

Who said the u.s. government had to be involved for it to be a conspiracy? There are private interest groups that wield enough power and influence to pull this off.

And you think THEY could be just as silent? Replace government with "large entity" if it suits you. Scandals come out for a reason, people can't shut up.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Tooncesthedrivingcat
I guess you heard him on Stern a few weeks ago.

No, got an email about Jessie Ventura's political afflication along with two others that played in Predator...I looked up Jessie Ventura on line and saw his views on 9/11.

I don't hate Stern but I don't listen to him at all.

 

[ElFenix]

must have been a demolition!

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Steve
Are you going to back up anything you say in this thread?

It's just discussion. Not trying to prove anything.

My belief and the backing up would take more than a few sentences though.

Personally it really doesn't matter if it was or wasn't any kind of conspiracy.

Most people wouldn't care as long as they get their Starbucks in the morning and have a half way decent ability to enjoy their freetime.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The thing about 9/11 is that everyone seems to have taken a position of either the whole thing is exactly as it seems, or the whole thing was a giant government conspiracy. If you watch the footage of the towers collapsing, something seems off. They seem to fall too quickly and perfectly. Yet if you start to think that maybe things aren't exactly as has been presented, the hardcore tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists try to suck you in and make you believe a million other improbable things. This, of course, leads to the characterization of anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the official story as a nut-job.

I, for one, do not think everything happened exactly as it appeared. I'm not speculating as to what did happen, but I do think the official story is wrong. But there's almost no way of further investigating it, and no way of convincing anyone with access to the right information to do a serious inquiry.

I think it goes beyond that. It is either that the towers were brought down by planes, and so the conspiracy involved only a couple dozen people, or it was brought down by explosives and hundreds are involved. There really are no other options.

you wouldn't need 100's of people for this. People believe this though.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

Who said the u.s. government had to be involved for it to be a conspiracy? There are private interest groups that wield enough power and influence to pull this off.

And you think THEY could be just as silent? Replace government with "large entity" if it suits you. Scandals come out for a reason, people can't shut up.

presuming that it is impossible for any group/corporation/government to keep secrets......seriously? are you serious? What about govt. black budget projects......they spend billions on those and keep them pretty secret.......oh wait I guess the military, CIA and FBI aren't really doing anything that the public doesn't know about......:roll:

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

Who said the u.s. government had to be involved for it to be a conspiracy? There are private interest groups that wield enough power and influence to pull this off.

And you think THEY could be just as silent? Replace government with "large entity" if it suits you. Scandals come out for a reason, people can't shut up.

Scandals come out because their is not much repercussions. This kind of thing stays quiet because if you do squeal they will not only kill you, but most of your loved ones.

We can't even take down our 'known' mob leaders.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The thing about 9/11 is that everyone seems to have taken a position of either the whole thing is exactly as it seems, or the whole thing was a giant government conspiracy. If you watch the footage of the towers collapsing, something seems off. They seem to fall too quickly and perfectly. Yet if you start to think that maybe things aren't exactly as has been presented, the hardcore tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists try to suck you in and make you believe a million other improbable things. This, of course, leads to the characterization of anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the official story as a nut-job.

I, for one, do not think everything happened exactly as it appeared. I'm not speculating as to what did happen, but I do think the official story is wrong. But there's almost no way of further investigating it, and no way of convincing anyone with access to the right information to do a serious inquiry.

I think it goes beyond that. It is either that the towers were brought down by planes, and so the conspiracy involved only a couple dozen people, or it was brought down by explosives and hundreds are involved. There really are no other options.

you wouldn't need 100's of people for this. People believe this though.

Do you know anything at all about controlled demolitions?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

*sigh*

I don't have any specific beliefs as to what happened or did not happen on 9/11, other than a bunch of people were needlessly murdered.

But as to government being able to keep secrets :

Manhattan Project
RS-71 (and any number of Skunkworks projects)
MKULTRA
etc

Read 'SpyCatcher', it's an interesting view of intelligence agencies, written by a former British senior MI5/MI6 career officer.

People tend to forget and ignore the past if it upsets their nice calm world.

While this doesn't have to be goverment related, our own government has been busted several times not doing as they say and even violating the very laws they are governed by.

The whole thing works because people are really a lot like sheep and tend to not notice certain things that happens right in front of them. There are YouTube videos with guys in absurd costumes just walking through the video that most people miss.

There is a whole science in this.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

your not making any sense here. Very obviously NY port authority owned the structure.....the guy had 99 year lease on it though. His losses are nothing as he has to put up zero dollars to rebuild the towers because as you stated he didn't own the buildings. The state did. He will still have the lease on the new towers which will be larger and more profitable than the old towers. He will profit unimaginable billions after they are rebuilt. This is just a big con job conducted by a few maniacal billionaires.

Sure, but he also loses the income from the towers for 10 years, loses the opportunity to use his investment, etc. What are you proposing, that the government just leave the land empty for 99 years to make sure he loses everything?



And once again:

I have to wonder why you are actually this stupid. All you have done is ramble off a handfull of random, unrelated tidbits that any third grader could reason through. Propose a theory and give evidence supporting that theory and maybe we won't think you are a total moron.

 

[torpid]

Ventura used to say that fat people just have no self control and need to learn when to stop eating at the dinner table. Now he's fat. Case closed, the guy is now senile.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf



And once again:

I have to wonder why you are actually this stupid. All you have done is ramble off a handfull of random, unrelated tidbits that any third grader could reason through. Propose a theory and give evidence supporting that theory and maybe we won't think you are a total moron.

Tell me how many square ft of space will be available in the new towers?

I would like to do this exercise so you can see how much he really stands to profit from his investment.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
The thing about 9/11 is that everyone seems to have taken a position of either the whole thing is exactly as it seems, or the whole thing was a giant government conspiracy. If you watch the footage of the towers collapsing, something seems off. They seem to fall too quickly and perfectly. Yet if you start to think that maybe things aren't exactly as has been presented, the hardcore tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists try to suck you in and make you believe a million other improbable things. This, of course, leads to the characterization of anyone who doesn't 100% agree with the official story as a nut-job.

I, for one, do not think everything happened exactly as it appeared. I'm not speculating as to what did happen, but I do think the official story is wrong. But there's almost no way of further investigating it, and no way of convincing anyone with access to the right information to do a serious inquiry.

I think it goes beyond that. It is either that the towers were brought down by planes, and so the conspiracy involved only a couple dozen people, or it was brought down by explosives and hundreds are involved. There really are no other options.

you wouldn't need 100's of people for this. People believe this though.

Do you know anything at all about controlled demolitions?

How is that relevant? ???????????????

 

[ElFenix]

they fell straight down!